Changing Alabama's primary dates makes sense (editorial)

THERE ARE two main reasons why a bill to alternate dates for Alabama’s primary elections every two years, between March and June, makes sense.

First, the bill would save the state about $3.9 million during years when there is a presidential primary. It would set a date every four years for a combined presidential and state party primary, allowing Alabama to pay for one election instead of two, as it does now.

Next, the bill would set a favorable date for Alabama’s presidential primary. The date, the second Tuesday in March, would be early enough to allow the state to shape the national election, but late enough to avoid being penalized by national parties for "leap-frogging" over traditional early-bird states.

The Senate should approve the bill, which has already been passed by the House.

Under this measure, the March primary date would alternate with one in June every two years. When there’s no presidential election, the party primaries for governor, the Legislature and other Alabama offices would be on the first Tuesday of June.

There is one catch, however. Bradley Davidson, executive director of the state Democratic Party, is worried that the change in dates every two years will become a source of confusion for Alabama candidates, election officials and voters.

This is a valid concern — but one that can easily be addressed.

Key to the success of the plan will be a healthy dose of voter education. The secretary of state’s office will have to get the word out about upcoming campaign dates and deadlines well ahead of time, whether through advertising or community volunteer efforts.

Alternating election dates is worth a try for cost-cutting reasons alone. In today’s recession-wracked economy, when the state faces proration, saving a few million dollars is a worthwhile pursuit.

But Alabama must do this the right way. Ultimately, if the plan saves money but results in fewer voters at the polls, Alabama loses in the long run.